Abstract: This article describes the theory of image restoration discourse
as an approach for understanding corporate crisis situations. This story
can be used by practitioners to help design messages during crises and
by critics or educators to critically evaluate messages produced during
crises. I begin by describing and illustrating the basic concepts in this
theory. Then, I offer suggestions for crisis communication based on this
body of theory and research. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1997 JAI Press Inc. Image is essential to organizations
(i.e., corporations, government bodies, non-profit groups) as well as individuals.
Even if we are moving away from a notion of image as a single impression
shared by an audience,(1) image is still a central concept to the field
of public relations. Firms may take preventive(2) and restorative approaches
to image problems.(3) This essay argues that the theory of image restoration
discourse is a viable approach for use in developing and understanding
messages that respond to corporate image crises.

Of course, there are differences in the repair efforts of individuals
and companies. For example, firms might use different strategies than individuals,
or employ them in different configurations. Firms may bring greater resources
to image repair efforts than individuals. Attorneys may recommend that
their companies eschew certain strategies to minimize the risks of litigation.
Nevertheless, the basic options are the same for both individual and corporate
image repair efforts.

THE THEORY OF IMAGE RESTORATION DISCOURSE

Basic Concepts of Image Restoration Theory

The key to understanding image repair strategies is to consider the
nature of attacks or complaints that prompt such responses or instigate
a corporate crisis.(4) An attack has two components:

1. The accused is held responsible for an action.

2. That act is considered offensive.

No matter what happened, it is not reasonable to form an unfavorable
impression of a firm unless that company is believed to be responsible
for that act. Responsibility can appear in many guises: for example, a
business can be blamed for acts that it performed, ordered, encouraged,
facilitated, or permitted to occur (or for acts of omission or poorly performed
acts that it appears responsible for). Furthermore, if nothing happened
- or if what did happen is not considered offensive - then the company's
image is not threatened. Importantly, a salient audience (or audiences)
must be thought to disapprove of the act.

Second, for both conditions, perceptions are more important than reality.
The important point is not whether the business in fact is responsible
for the offensive act, but whether the firm is thought to be responsible
for it by the relevant audience. Of course, if the firm is not really to
blame for the offensive act, this can be an important component of its
response. As long as the audience thinks the firm at fault, the image is
at risk.

Similarly, the key question is not if the act was in fact offensive,
but whether the act is believed by the relevant audience(s) to be heinous.
Of course, if the act in question was not actually offensive, that can
be an important part of its defense. But the most important question is
whether the salient audience believes the act to be offensive.

Finally, corporations often address multiple audiences. For example,
a business might face local citizens, governmental regulators, stockholders,
employees, pressure groups, and politicians. Each audience potentially
has diverse interests, concerns, and goals. The crisis communicator must
identify the most important audience (or prioritize important audiences).

Typology of Image Restoration Strategies

Rather than describe the kinds of crisis situations(5) or the stages
in a crisis,(6) the theory of image restoration discourse focuses on message
options. In other words, what can a corporation say when faced with a crisis?
This theory(7) is more exhaustive than the earlier theories (apologia,
accounts) on which it builds. This theory offers five broad categories
of image repair strategies, some with variants, that respond to such threats.
Denial and evasion of responsibility address the first component of persuasive
attack, rejecting or reducing the [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] accused's
responsibility for the act in question. Reducing offensiveness and corrective
action, the third and fourth broad category of image restoration, concern
the second component of persuasive attack: reducing offensiveness of the
act attributed to the accused. The last general strategy, mortification,
tries to restore an image by asking forgiveness.

Denial

One general approach to image repair, with two variants, is denial.
For example, Pepsi-Cola accused Coca-Cola of requiring its other accounts
to pay higher prices, subsidizing its largest customer, McDonald's. Coke
replied by simply and directly denying Pepsi's charges: charges that Coke
increased prices for some customers but not all "were absolutely false;"
price increases were "universally applied; there were no exceptions."(8)
Here, Coke rejects Pepsi's charges as false. A firm may deny that the act
occurred, that the firm performed the act, or that the act was harmful
to anyone.

A second form of denial is shifting the blame, arguing that another
person or organization is actually responsible for the offensive act. After
the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Rawl, Chair of Exxon, "blamed state officials
and the Coast Guard for the delay, charging ... that the company could
not obtain immediate authorization on the scene to begin cleaning up the
oil or applying a chemical dispersant."(9) If Exxon was not at fault
for the delay, their image should not be tarnished.

Evasion of Responsibility

This general image repair strategy has four versions. A firm can say
its act was merely a response to another's offensive act, and that the
behavior can be seen as a reasonable reaction to that provocation. For
example, a company might claim it moved its plant to another state because
the first state passed a new law reducing its profit margin.

Another specific form of evading responsibility is defeasibility. Here,
the business alleges a lack of information about or control over important
elements of the situation. For instance, a busy executive who missed an
important meeting could claim that "I was never told that the meeting
had been moved up a day." If true, the lack of information excuses
the absence.

A third option is to claim the offensive action occurred by accident.
If the company can convince the audience that the act in question happened
accidentally, it should be held less accountable, and the damage to that
business's image should be reduced. After charges of auto repair fraud,
Sears' Chairman Brennan characterized the auto repair mistakes as "inadvertent,"
rather than intentional.(10)

Fourth, the business can suggest that the offensive behavior was performed
with good intentions. Brennan also stressed Sears' good intentions, declaring
that "Sears wants you to know that we would never intentionally violate
the trust customers have shown in our company for 105 years."(11)
This remark functions to stress Sears' good intentions toward its customers.

Reduce Offensiveness

A company that is accused of wrongful actions can also try to reduce
the perceived offensiveness of that act. This general image repair strategy
has six versions.

First, a corporation may use bolstering to strengthen the audience's
positive feelings toward the itself, in order to offset the negative feelings
connected with the wrongful act. Businesses may describe positive characteristics
they have or positive acts they have done in the past. After the Valdez
oil spill, for example, Exxon's Chairman Rawl declared that "Exxon
has moved swiftly and competently to minimize the effect this oil will
have on the environment, fish, and other wildlife." He expressed his
sympathy to "the residents of Valdez and the people of the State of
Alaska."(12) These sentiments, if accepted, should bolster its image
and offset damage to its reputation.

A second possibility is to try to minimize the negative feelings associated
with the wrongful act. After the Valdez oil spill, Exxon officials also
tried to downplay the extent of the damage. Baker explained that "On
May 19, when Alaska retrieved corpses of tens of thousands of sea birds,
hundreds of otters, and dozens of bald eagles, an Exxon official told National
Public Radio that Exxon had counted just 300 birds and 70 otters."(13)
This statement works to minimize the apparent problem.

Third, a firm can employ differentiation, in which the act is distinguished
from other similar but more offensive actions. Sears argued that the acts
labeled unneeded repairs were actually preventative maintenance.(14) Clearly,
its actions sound much less offensive when understood as preventative maintenance
instead of as fraud.

A fourth way of reducing offensiveness is transcendence, which attempts
to place the act in a more favorable context. A company that experiments
on animals could claim the benefits to humans from such research outweigh
the harms to animals.

Fifth, those accused of wrong-doing may decide to attack their accusers.
After Coca-Cola argued that Coke is more profitable than Pepsi, Pepsi-Cola
counter-attacked in advertisements aimed at retail outlets. One ad claimed
that Coke charged other firms more than McDonald's: "Coke's pricing
policy is requiring you to subsidize the operations of your largest competitor."(15)
This attack on Coke this might reduce the damage from Coke's criticism
of Pepsi.

Compensation is the final form of reducing offensiveness. If it is acceptable
to the victim, the firm's image should be improved. For example, a group
of disabled people were denied admittance to a movie theater. An official
later apologized and offered them free passes to a future movie to help
compensate for this offensive act.(16)

Corrective Action

Another general image restoration strategy is corrective action, in
which the company promises to correct the problem. This action can take
the form of restoring the state of affairs existing before the offensive
action, and/or promising to prevent the recurrence of the offensive act.
For instance, in 1993 AT&T experienced a breakdown in long distance
service to and from New York City. Chairman Allen relied heavily on corrective
action: "We have already taken corrective and preventive action at
the affected facility" in New York City, including "a thorough
examination of all of our facilities and practices, from the ground up."
He also announced plans "to spend billions more over the next few
years to make them even more reliable."(17) Thus, he not only promised
to correct the current problem but also to prevent future problems.

Mortification

The final general strategy for image restoration is to confess and beg
forgiveness, which Burke labels mortification.(18) Another part of AT&T's
response was mortification, or apology: "I apologize to all of you
who were affected, directly or indirectly."(19) A potential drawback
to this strategy is that it might invite lawsuits from victims.

Several studies illustrate the potential of this theory. Benoit applied
this theory to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, to Union Carbide's response
to the Bhopal gas leak, and to a series of advertisements by Coca-Cola
and Pepsi-Cola in Nation's Restaurant News.(20) Benoit and Brinson applied
it to AT&T's handling of the long distance service interruption in
New York City.(21) Benoit also applied it to Sears' response to accusations
of auto repair fraud in California.(22) Brinson and Benoit analyzed DOW
Corning's handling of the breast implant crisis.(23) Benoit and Czerwinski
analyzed USAir's discourse following the crash near Pittsburgh and a hostile
story published in the New York Times.(24)

SUGGESTIONS FOR CRISIS COMMUNICATION

Recommendations for utilizing these strategies are emerging from this
research. These ideas are organized under three topics preparation before
the crisis, identification of the nature of the crisis, and suggestions
for coping with crises.

Preparation of Crisis Contingency Plans

Before a crisis occurs, judicious planning may reduce response time
and possibly prevent missteps in an organization's initial response to
a crisis. Someone in the firm be responsible for a crisis response and
take swift action when needed. Tylenol acted quickly in the first poisoning
episode,(25) while Exxon's reaction was slow, undermining its image repair
efforts.(26)

This person should also anticipate potential crises and prepare contingency
plans. Although crises can take a variety of forms, some potential crises
can be anticipated. An airline should anticipate the possibility of a crash;
a restaurant should prepare for cases of food-poisoning. These contingency
plans should be reviewed periodically and implemented thoughtfully: elements
of the actual problem may differ from the anticipated problem, so plans
should be modified as needed.

Analysis of the Crisis and the Accusations

When a crisis occurs, it is important to clearly understand both the
nature of crisis and the relevant audience(s). First, what are the accusations
or suspicions? A firm must know the nature of the crisis to respond appropriately.
Second, it is important to know the perceived severity of the alleged offense.
The response should be tailored to the offense.

Identification of the Relevant Audience(s)

It is vital to clearly identify the salient audience(s). A key part
of persuasion is tailoring one's message(s) to the audience. For example,
suppose a company is accused of dumping waste. At least five different
potential audiences can be identified in this situation. First, the company
may, of course, wish to assuage the concerns of their attackers, the environmentalists.
However, the opinions of its stockholders are important, if they are aware
of the controversy. Governmental regulators may fine or otherwise sanction
the company. If customers decide to boycott the company because of the
attacks, consumers are another potential audience. Local voters could conceivably
pass laws restricting the company's business practices. The interests of
these groups differ widely (e.g., stockholders are concerned with profits;
environmentalists with the quality of the environment; regulators with
laws; local voters with their community), and thus message appeals that
might be effective with one group could be worthless with another.

A company facing crisis may hope to favorably influence more than one
audience. If so, it is best to prioritize the audiences, making sure that
the most important audience is appeased first, and then devoting time and
effort to the other audiences as possible. This may be done with different
messages delivered to different groups (while separate messages may stress
different points, according to the intended audience, it is risky to develop
contradictory messages), or by directing different passages or aspects
of a message to different audiences.

Repairing a Tarnished Image

Must the Accused Always Respond to the Charges? Ryan asserts that "the
critic cannot have a complete understanding of accusation or apology without
treating them both."(27) However, this does not necessarily mean the
firm must respond to those accusations.

First, it is possible to redefine the attack. Second, instead of altering
the nature of the accusations, the business may attempt to refocus attention
on other issues. Third, it is possible that each accusations is not be
important to the audience. Of course, if a charge is important to the audience,
or if it is repeated enough by the attackers, a business may well be forced
to deal with that accusation.

Suggestions for Effective Image Repair Discourse

First, because image restoration rhetoric is a form of persuasive discourse,
suggestions for effectiveness can be derived from our understanding of
persuasion generally. The analysis of the cola wars(28) reveals advice
applicable to persuasion generally: avoid making false claims; provide
adequate support for claims, develop themes throughout a campaign; avoid
arguments that may backfire. Examination of Exxon's discourse on the Valdez
oil spill(29) suggests that once Exxon made self-serving statements that
seemed at odds with other information (their allegedly swift and competent
cleanup), that may have damaged Exxon's credibility and undermined other
arguments. Coke's response to Pepsi's accusations appropriately used a
clearly identified and prominent company spokesperson, while Sears at first
used an ineffectual outside lawyer.(30) However, other suggestions for
image repair discourse are specific to crisis communication discourse.

Second, a company that is at fault should probably admit this immediately
(image restoration concerns may, admittedly, conflict with a desire to
avoid lawsuits, and the firm must decide whether it is more important to
restore its image or avoid litigation). Apart from the fact that this is
morally the correct thing to do, attempting to deny true accusations can
backfire. An organization that falsely denies responsibility for offensive
actions risks substantially damaged credibility if the truth emerges. Although
initially attempting to shift the blame, AT&T eventually accepted responsibility
for the interruption in long-distance service, and this probably helped
restore its image.(31) Pepsi should have apologized for making false accusations
against Coke. Perhaps Union Carbide should have accepted some responsibility
for the gas leak and apologized.(32)

Of course, those accused of wrong-doing may, in fact, be innocent. Tylenol
successfully denied that it had been responsible for deaths to its customers.(33)
Coca-Cola effectively denied Pepsi's charges that Coke's other customers
were subsidizing McDonald's.(34)

Fourth, at times it is possible to successfully shift the blame. Tylenol
successfully shifted the blame for the poisonings to an unknown person,
someone insane.(35) However, shifting the blame cannot be viewed as a certain
solution to image problems. Exxon attempted to shift the blame for the
Valdez oil spill to Captain Hazelwood. The captain had been hired and given
command of the Valdez by Exxon, so even if he is to blame at best Exxon
should have to shoulder responsibility with him.

Related to this is the strategy of defeasibility. For example, Exxon
could have done a better job stressing poor ocean conditions for problems
with the clean-up. If factors beyond one's control can be shown to have
cause the offensive act, this may alleviate responsibility and help restore
a tarnished image, a fifth recommendation for corporate image repair.

Sixth, it can be extremely important to report plans to correct and/or
prevent recurrence of the problem. While people frequently want to know
whom to blame, it is more reassuring to know that steps have been taken
to eliminate or avoid future problems. A firm commitment to correct the
problem - repair damage and/or prevent future problems - can be a very
important component of image restoration discourse. This would be especially
important for those who admit responsibility. AT&T described in some
detail plans for insuring reliability.(36) Even those who are innocent
of wrong-doing can benefit from plans for preventing recurrence of the
problem. For example, while Tylenol denied responsibility for the deaths
from poisoned capsules, they introduced tamper-resistant packaging after
the first incident and phased out capsules altogether after the second
incident.(37)

Of course, corrective action cannot assure success. For example, although
Exxon boasted of its "swift" and "competent" actions,
newspaper reports revealed that these descriptions were inaccurate. There
is a risk that this strategy will fail - if not backfire - if one's actions
do not fulfill one's promises.

Seventh, minimization cannot always be expected to improve one's image.
Exxon's feeble efforts to minimize the amount of damage may have been counterproductive.(38)
Trying to make a serious problem seem trivial can create a backlash.

Eighth, multiple strategies can work together. Union Carbide's plans
to alleviate suffering were consistent with the attempts at bolstering,
portraying the company as concerned with victims of the tragedy. Similarly,
defeasibility may identify causes of the problem that corrective action
can resolve.

Finally, we must recognize that the powers of persuasion are limited.
There was relatively little that could be done to restore Exxon's image
after the Valdez oil spill - other than wait until most consumers had forgotten
the incident.

CONCLUSION

This article described the theory of image repair discourse and discussed
research in the corporate realm. Suggestions for those who encounter communication
crises are developed, showing how this theory can guide practitioners and
critics.